> If functions were properly supported as properties, there'd be a simple
> generic solution:
>
> AutotestRunner {
> additionalArgsFunc: function(testArtifact) {
> var myArgs = [];
> var additionalImportPaths =
> testArtifact.quickpaths.additionalImportPaths;
> for (var i in additionalImportPaths)
> myArgs.push("-import", additionalImportPaths[i]);
> return myArgs;
> })
> }
>
> In fact, I think this is already possible, though the implementation (on
> the AutotestRunner side) would look rather awful, involving eval().
> So maybe that's the way to go? Higher-level concepts might not be flexible
> enough. For instance, the approach sketched above also allows you to get
> the necessary information from product or project properties, or even from
> the environment.
>
That could be a clear and flexible solution but is it possible to use
function properties? Or you were thinking of wrapping the function
definition in a string??
--
Federico Frenguelli
_______________________________________________
Qbs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qbs
